• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of jmedethJournal of Medical EthicsVisit this articleSubmit a manuscriptReceive email alertsContact usBMJ
J Med Ethics. Apr 1996; 22(2): 78–82.
PMCID: PMC1376918

Research ethics committee audit: differences between committees.

Abstract

The same research proposal was submitted to 24 district health authority (DHA) research ethics committees in different parts of the country. The objective was to obtain permission for a multi-centre research project. The study of neonatal care in different types of unit (regional, subregional and district), required that four health authorities were approached in each of six widely separated health regions in England. Data were collected and compared concerning aspects of processing, including application forms, information required, timing and decision-making. The key finding was that ethics committees received and processed the applications variably, reflecting individual factors and local problems. To improve consensus and facilitate multicentre studies, standard forms and instructions are suggested and the establishment of a national committee or advisory group advocated.

Full text

Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (871K), or click on a page image below to browse page by page. Links to PubMed are also available for Selected References.

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Moran J. Local research ethics committees. Report of the 2nd National Conference. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1992 Oct;26(4):423–431. [PubMed]
  • Moodie P. The role of local research ethics committees. BMJ. 1992 May 2;304(6835):1129–1130. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Berry TJ, Ades TE, Peckham CS. Too many ethical committees. BMJ. 1990 Dec 1;301(6763):1274–1274. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Penn ZJ, Steer PJ. Local research ethics committees: hindrance or help? Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995 Jan;102(1):1–2. [PubMed]
  • Moodie PC, Marshall T. Guidelines for local research ethics committees. BMJ. 1992 May 16;304(6837):1293–1295. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Harding T, Ummel M. Evaluating the work of ethical review committees: an observation and a suggestion. J Med Ethics. 1989 Dec;15(4):191–194. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Middle C, Johnson A, Petty T, Sims L, Macfarlane A. Ethics approval for a national postal survey: recent experience. BMJ. 1995 Sep 9;311(7006):659–660. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Meade TW. The trouble with ethics committees. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1994 Mar-Apr;28(2):102–104. [PubMed]
  • Gilbert C, Fulford KW, Parker C. Diversity in the practice of district ethics committees. BMJ. 1989 Dec 9;299(6713):1437–1439. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Lock S. Towards a national bioethics committee. BMJ. 1990 May 5;300(6733):1149–1150. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Garfield P. Cross district comparison of applications to research ethics committees. BMJ. 1995 Sep 9;311(7006):660–661. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • While AE. Ethics committees: impediments to research or guardians of ethical standards? BMJ. 1995 Sep 9;311(7006):661–661. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Articles from Journal of Medical Ethics are provided here courtesy of BMJ Group

Formats:

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...

Links

  • PubMed
    PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...